The morality of piracy

[Vas Incrementum]

There is on old saying "whoever is kind to the cruel is cruel to the kind." The retail corporations figured out that they don't have to take the loss on shoplifting and instead can pass that loss off on to honest paying customers and get their payback from the insurance companies anyway. Meanwhile, the shoplifters are given free reign to all the groceries they want.

Yep, levelling the playing field and resource redistribution at micro (green lighted shoplifting) and macro (3rd world population migrant influx) levels. Hardcore socialism is being implemented all around and the blurry edges being discussed here are either an an unintended or intended (on the spiritual level it's the later for sure) consequence of the Enlightenment project. We will own nothing and be "happy".

A good conversation would be: creativity and incentivisation in the brave new world. Throw in AI and it makes my head spin, with all it's dark implications pointing in the direction of human redundancy.

 

[Blade Runner]

Yep, levelling the playing field and resource redistribution at micro (green lighted shoplifting) and macro (3rd world population migrant influx) levels. Hardcore socialism is being implemented all around and the blurry edges being discussed here are either an an unintended or intended (on the spiritual level it's the later for sure) consequence of the Enlightenment project. We will own nothing and be "happy".

A good conversation would be: creativity and incentivisation in the brave new world. Throw in AI and it makes my head spin, with all it's dark implications pointing in the direction of human redundancy.

I think the problem is that the technical arguers here "feel" that there is something wrong with it, and may not be entirely incorrect, but they lack situational ethics and understanding. For example, scorpion will shill against piracy but in other places he argues for money printing and disregards the Cantillon effect, things FAR more clearly immoral and lead to a way worse society in terms of products and pricing (for everyone). We live in a mass distribution world, one that has been aided by tech and in which much has been taken away from producers in sovereign/advanced countries, again so the big boys could get rich. Now we people fight back against lawfare and corporate/multinationals, it seems like it's lame to talk about some "hold the line" ethic = you're just a sucker acting like you're a good person, it's like moral virtue signalling. I'm not convinced much of it matters. At least the examples given so far, to be certain.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Now we people fight back against lawfare and corporate/multinationals, it seems like it's lame to talk about some "hold the line" ethic = you're just a sucker acting like you're a good person, it's like moral virtue signalling.

I don't think I'm a good person at all and I'm not trying to go on some Rooshian purity spiral just cuz. I simply recognize that the Bible defines what is right and wrong, not me. The virtue signalling that the Left does is meant to aggrandize themselves. None of us think you should look to us as moral examples.

 

[scorpion]

We live in a mass distribution world, one that has been aided by tech and in which much has been taken away from producers in sovereign/advanced countries, again so the big boys could get rich. Now we people fight back against lawfare and corporate/multinationals

So in your view the morality of piracy is determined by the size of the entity you're stealing from? A sort of Robin Hood-esque ethos? In that case, would you at least agree it would be wrong to pirate a game made by a small solo developer, or an album put out by an independent artist?

 

[Blade Runner]

I don't think I'm a good person at all and I'm not trying to go on some Rooshian purity spiral just cuz. I simply recognize that the Bible defines what is right and wrong, not me.

Fair enough, what I'm saying here is that all of the attempts you guys tried to give were literally irrelevant to the argument the other guys were putting forward. They were commenting on multiples of distribution which the person "pirating" was not changing, and you kept saying they were stealing things that were gone when they did that, which was as a matter of fact, not the case. You need to change your argument because it literally didn't make sense and wasn't analogous. And no, it's not in the bible, but because it's not concretely there I agree, it doesn't mean we can't discern it. Of course, this proves in fact that we look at it for guidance and interpretation from much holier people, in our own life and situation, as it is how we live.

So in your view the morality of piracy is determined by the size of the entity you're stealing from?

No, I would say that it is more about the way in which it is produced, used, and the type of thing it is. As I said earlier in the thread, there are translations of great works, lots of entertainment and books written, that are public domain and no one is suing you for using those now. Would you then argue that sufficient time passing isn't "stealing"? You all's view is easily shown to be very contingent on things that just won't hold up, especially over time. As an added example, is it "right" that Marvin Gaye's estate got money (not him, not anyone who made the music) because they argued someone "stole" his music, which was even questionable? You can see how convincing this side of the argument is, since it refutes yours easily in certain sectors (like music and entertainment, but yes I do go case by case).

 

[Thomas More]

Fair enough, what I'm saying here is that all of the attempts you guys tried to give were literally irrelevant to the argument the other guys were putting forward. They were commenting on multiples of distribution which the person "pirating" was not changing, and you kept saying they were stealing things that were gone when they did that, which was as a matter of fact, not the case. You need to change your argument because it literally didn't make sense and wasn't analogous. And no, it's not in the bible, but because it's not concretely there I agree, it doesn't mean we can't discern it. Of course, this proves in fact that we look at it for guidance and interpretation from much holier people, in our own life and situation, as it is how we live.

No, I would say that it is more about the way in which it is produced, used, and the type of thing it is. As I said earlier in the thread, there are translations of great works, lots of entertainment and books written, that are public domain and no one is suing you for using those now. Would you then argue that sufficient time passing isn't "stealing"? You all's view is easily shown to be very contingent on things that just won't hold up, especially over time. As an added example, is it "right" that Marvin Gaye's estate got money (not him, not anyone who made the music) because they argued someone "stole" his music, which was even questionable? You can see how convincing this side of the argument is, since it refutes yours easily in certain sectors (like music and entertainment, but yes I do go case by case).

"multiples of distribution which the person "pirating" was not changing"

I think I addressed this. It is totally irrelevant to the morality of stealing. Even if they are copying a file that can be copied infinitely, it is their owner's property, and that owner chooses to offer it for money. Some of that money goes to the artist. Some goes to an agent, some to a record company. It's their right as owners of that IP, and as the people operating the marketing channel.

It has been argued in this thread that the owners are bad people so it's alright to steal from them, but I don't recall any clause in the 7th Commandment about whether you are stealing from a bad person. Some say that the content is wicked too, which makes it alright to steal it, but if so why are you wanting to consume it?

Basically, the fact that files can be copied has nothing to do with the morality of taking them against the owner's will. None of the arguments presented hear bears on this fact.

 

[scorpion]

As I said earlier in the thread, there are translations of great works, lots of entertainment and books written, that are public domain and no one is suing you for using those now. Would you then argue that sufficient time passing isn't "stealing"?

Public domain is a separate issue entirely, and most pirating being done today is of contemporary commercial media, not material in the public domain. In that sense, it's like the difference between "stealing" a couch that someone left on the side of the road, versus breaking into their house and stealing the couch out of their living room.

As an added example, is it "right" that Marvin Gaye's estate got money (not him, not anyone who made the music) because they argued someone "stole" his music, which was even questionable?

Personally I think that copyright should expire at something along the lines of 20-25 years after the original creator's death. This would allow for the creator's children to enjoy most of the benefit of their father/mother's work, but after that the material should pass into public domain.

My main criticism of piracy is that I don't think it's right to steal something that an artist/creator invested significant time and effort to create, and which he is currently selling at a fair price to support himself. Every moral standard informs us that this is wrong, from the Bible, to the golden rule, to the categorical imperative, to the ethical and moral teachings of basically every society on the planet. No one is entitled to the fruit of another man's labor without trading fairly for it. I also think that a blasé attitude toward piracy (particularly digital media piracy) encourages the consumption of unhealthy amounts of media. In other words, if you're consuming so much media that you feel the need and/or right to pirate it to feed your appetite, you're wasting way too much of your time on games/movies/TV shows. If you really want to watch/play something, pay for it. If you aren't so interested that you're willing to pay for it, find something more productive to fill your time.

 

[Maddox]

Thread 'Music Artists Casting Spells On Their Listeners'

Mar 8, 2025

Interesting video. What surprised me is that some of these "artists" are actually admitting to it.

• Maddox
• Replies: 13
• Forum: Music

• 
• 
• 

@Maddox thoughts. Is modern music produced via demons? If a human produces music via demons, is that human entitled to “their reward”, or is there no justification for entitlement?

Or does God not care because it’s a shortcut?

You lost me. Some modern music is produced via demons. Not sure what you mean by "reward."

 

[FrancisK]

I feel like this is a rare discussion where both sides have merit to the argument. I wouldn't fault either side on it, it's understandable both ways.

 

[PurpleUrkel]

In that case, would you at least agree it would be wrong to pirate a game made by a small solo developer, or an album put out by an independent artist?

Most likely yes, but then again it depends on who they are in private which could be hard to discern. If they are a child molester then yes, "steal" every penny they have. If they are supporters of faggotry and trannyism and gay marriage and abortion then yes, take everything you can from (((them))). Do not let evil rest, and certainly refuse to issue it payment.

So in your view the morality of piracy is determined by the size of the entity you're stealing from?

Not the size, but the spiritual/cultural rot they produce and/or the "legal thieving" and economic fleecing (((they))) engage in. 90% of the US economy is literally fuelled by gasoline which has been holding steady at $3 a gallon (give or take 50 cents a gallon) for the better part of a decade yet since the fake, illegal, immoral, anti-Christian plandemic grocery store prices have doubled (and in some instances trippled) while grocery store chains rake in record profits. This is called price gouging in a time of "crisis" and it is illegal, but alas, once again, "It's a big club and we ain't in it," so the rules don't apply to (((them))). Remember those two regular Joe white dudes who forsaw the hand sanitizer shortage and went around buying up all the hand sanitizer before there was a shortage and when they started selling it on Amazon for $30 a bottle (which people were gleefully paying for it) they were threatened with arrest for price gouging and had their entire operation shut down and they lost 40K and were shamed into donating it all to poor non-whites? Yeah, f*ck (((them))). Righteously reclaim that which has been stolen from you (this includes your tax dollars which are used to fund Israel's genociding of Palestinians). Don't be a cuck. Fight fire with fire. God does not want us to be weak men who bend over and take it from the synagogue of satan.

A sort of Robin Hood-esque ethos?

Yes.

...the Bible defines what is right and wrong...

Yes and no. The Bible says many things which are difficult to decipher and often seem contradictory. In addition, The Bible as a text has been altered by the usual suspects (and false prophets) to get us to "turn the other cheek" when the jews strike Christians as (((they))) cry out in pain. Before the jews used Hollywood and TV to psyop and degrade the Christian spirit they used the written word. Don't think for one instance that the Bible we have today is unadulterated. God does not want us to be victims, or muzzie martyrs, he wants us to stand up for what is right and just and it is completely legitimate and within the framework of Christianity to take back that which has been stolen from you. And when you overpay or are overcharged for an inferior product or service, you have been stolen from.

 

[Thomas More]

Most likely yes, but then again it depends on who they are in private which could be hard to discern. If they are a child molester then yes, "steal" every penny they have. If they are supporters of faggotry and trannyism and gay marriage and abortion then yes, take everything you can from (((them))). Do not let evil rest, and certainly refuse to issue it payment.

Not the size, but the spiritual/cultural rot they produce and/or the "legal thieving" and economic fleecing (((they))) engage in. 90% of the US economy is literally fuelled by gasoline which has been holding steady at $3 a gallon (give or take 50 cents a gallon) for the better part of a decade yet since the fake, illegal, immoral, anti-Christian plandemic grocery store prices have doubled (and in some instances trippled) while grocery store chains rake in record profits. This is called price gouging in a time of "crisis" and it is illegal, but alas, once again, "It's a big club and we ain't in it," so the rules don't apply to (((them))). Remember those two regular Joe white dudes who forsaw the hand sanitizer shortage and went around buying up all the hand sanitizer before there was a shortage and when they started selling it on Amazon for $30 a bottle (which people were gleefully paying for it) they were threatened with arrest for price gouging and had their entire operation shut down and they lost 40K and were shamed into donating it all to poor non-whites? Yeah, f*ck (((them))). Righteously reclaim that which has been stolen from you (this includes your tax dollars which are used to fund Israel's genociding of Palestinians). Don't be a cuck. Fight fire with fire. God does not want us to be weak men who bend over and take it from the synagogue of satan.

Yes.

Yes and no. The Bible says many things which are difficult to decipher and often seem contradictory. In addition, The Bible as a text has been altered by the usual suspects (and false prophets) to get us to "turn the other cheek" when the jews strike Christians as (((they))) cry out in pain. Before the jews used Hollywood and TV to psyop and degrade the Christian spirit they used the written word. Don't think for one instance that the Bible we have today is unadulterated. God does not want us to be victims, or muzzie martyrs, he wants us to stand up for what is right and just and it is completely legitimate and within the framework of Christianity to take back that which has been stolen from you. And when you overpay or are overcharged for an inferior product or service, you have been stolen from.

The part of the Bible about stealing seems reasonably clear and consistent to me. You shouldn't do it, and there's no clause about it being ok to steal from bad people.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

In addition, The Bible as a text has been altered by the usual suspects (and false prophets) to get us to "turn the other cheek" when the jews strike Christians as (((they))) cry out in pain.

Pure falsehood and you can't even begin to back this up with any evidence.

In your case, your commitment to anti-Jewry is paramount and all your other views are warped around it. If anything gets in the way of that, including the Bible, they will be put to the side.

 

[PurpleUrkel]

The part of the Bible about stealing seems reasonably clear and consistent to me. You shouldn't do it, and there's no clause about it being ok to steal from bad people.

Then what does it say about war? Is it okay to kill bad people? So it is okay to kill bad people but not take their belongings? What does it say about the death penalty? Or, when you are being attacked are you to put down your weapons and let an enemy slay you unapposed? We are being attacked, we are being murdered via theft. We are having our land stolen. We are having our hard earned cash stolen by banks and governments to fight endless wars that do not make our lives better and we are not to "steal" it back? Again, it is not theft from the innocent, it is taking back that which has been stolen from us by the synagogue of satan.

Pure falsehood and you can't even begin to back this up with any evidence.

In your case, your commitment to anti-Jewry is paramount and all your other views are warped around it. If anything gets in the way of that, including the Bible, they will be put to the side.

Yeah, once again you conveniently skate around that which you do for money. You are somehow neck deep in this world of economic jewry and/or media piracy thing and so your confirmation bias is off the charts with personal attacks. Stick to the f*cking argument and not me personally. But you can't can you? Because your arguments are weak and personally defensive in nature and so you must result to personal slights.

New Testament, Old Testament, New Living Translation, King James, New King James, Darby Bible, English Standard Version, New International Version, The Message (a "paraphrasing" Bible), Septuagint, Amplified Bible, et al, and that doesn't even get into controversial offshoot alterations like the Jehovas Witnesse's New World Translation and Book Of Mormon. Oh which one to believe seeing as how none of them have been altered to fit a human agenda, and all read exactly the same?

The key issue is that stealing is not stealing when it is taking back that which evil forces have stolen from you. When you take back that which has been stolen from you it is called "righteous reclamation," not "stealing."

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Yeah, once again you conveniently skate around that which you do for money. You are somehow neck deep in this world of economic jewry and/or media piracy thing and so your confirmation bias is off the charts with personal attacks. Stick to the f*cking argument and not me personally. But you can't can you? Because your arguments are weak and personally defensive in nature and so you must result to personal slights.

It's blatantly obvious that your personal religion is Anti-Jew and little else. That's not a personal attack, it's merely an observation. Just about every post you make is about Jews and their machinations. You see them under every bush, under your bed, and in your nightmares. If you think I'm "neck deep in economic jewry" then you do not know me.

New Testament, Old Testament, New Living Translation, King James, New King James, Darby Bible, English Standard Version, New International Version, The Message (a "paraphrasing" Bible), Septuagint, Amplified Bible, et al, and that doesn't even get into controversial offshoot alterations like the Jehovas Witnesse's New World Translation and Book Of Mormon. Oh which one to believe seeing as how none of them have been altered to fit a human agenda, and all read exactly the same?

You claim to be a Catholic. So go to your priest and ask him this question. Report back what he says.

It is clear that you don't have the slightest clue about the history of the Bible, it's manuscript traditions, and the various translations on the market. It's not even a question of "which one to believe." There are many translations that do a fine job.

The key issue is that stealing is not stealing when it is taking back that which evil forces have stolen from you. When you take back that which has been stolen from you it is called "righteous reclamation," not "stealing."

Maybe instead of rationalizing the Bible away through your bad arguments, you should pick it up and read it some time. Then you will know what stealing is instead of defining it according to your own myopic view of justice.

Here are two passages for you to think about, Matthew 21 and Romans 11. In Matthew, Jesus does not commend the people who stole from the "economic jewry" money changers in the Temple, but castigates them for turning the Temple into a den of thieves. This is you and you must repent. In Romans, Paul warns that if you become arrogant and prideful against the Jews, the natural branches, then God will just as easily pluck you off the tree as He plucked them off. Simply being Anti-Jew will not save you, but believing in Jesus and His Word will.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

You lost me. Some modern music is produced via demons. Not sure what you mean by "reward."

Reward means compensation. As in if someone consumes an artist’s music that’s artist should receive compensation.

 

[Острог]

In my personal opinion music and other arts should be rewarded by donation - an artist puts out their content for free and it's up to the listener to reward him how he sees fit if he deems the content valuable, just like he would by throwing something into an instrument case on the street. Computer software is different because it's a tool and thus should have a price like a set of wrenches or pliers or what have you.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

Even if they are copying a file that can be copied infinitely, it is their owner's property

How is music someone's property? Just because you're an inventor of something doesn't mean you own it. We as a society understand that you need to be rewarded for your impact but that's a matter of respect and a broader incentivization for productive behavior. I can just as easily make the argument you're playing God by trying to exert such level of ownership over things, instead of sharing it with the world.

Are white people stealing "seasoning" from the ethnics as well? I think I'm starting to understand why white people are so scared of cooking ethnic food for profit and there's an unspoken rule that only ethnic hands can cook your burrito or whatever.

 

[Thomas More]

How is music someone's property? Just because you're an inventor of something doesn't mean you own it. We as a society understand that you need to be rewarded for your impact but that's a matter of respect and a broader incentivization for productive behavior. I can just as easily make the argument you're playing God by trying to exert such level of ownership over things, instead of sharing it with the world.

Are white people stealing "seasoning" from the ethnics as well? I think I'm starting to understand why white people are so scared of cooking ethnic food for profit and there's an unspoken rule that only ethnic hands can cook your burrito or whatever.

Copyright and the concept of intellectual property are pretty well established in human society, and in law under the government. If you reject these and say they don't apply to you, then you are an outlaw. I assume you are not an outlaw in every sense as most people think of the term. Maybe just a digital outlaw.

Personally, I support the principles of copyright and the concept of intellectual property. Most of the arguments here have said that small producers deserve to get paid for their IP but big producers and bad people deserve to have it stolen. You seem to go further and say the concept of IP in general is invalid.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

Copyright and the concept of intellectual property are pretty well established in human society, and in law under the government.

Deference to "society" in such a way is a perversion. I'll go even further and say it's a major acquired flaw of the white race. Sometimes I read these bizarre comments that hint at the existence of such perversion. For a recent example - Indians publicly urinating. There's nothing "subhuman" about public urination.

The purpose of law and order and by extension polite society is to tame your animal instincts so we can coexist as a group. It's not to mold you into a goody two-shoes, bootlicking hall monitor. That's totalitarianism. The whole premise of our society is built on our collective acknowledgement of your primal nature just as much as the virtue of obedience. We can't lose sight of the original purpose. As an example, we have an understanding that a man has strong sexual urges but we have a strict expectation that you will seek consent for the greater good. Now it's been inverted where someone asking for consent is the default and rape is some kind of pseudo-psychological defect. Despite our absolutist view of consent sexuality has never been more perverted as a concept. Somehow the savages were more civilized despite their "perverse" inclinations.

I'm not sure why you keep treating IP as a human right when society literally gives you a time limit. IP is a privilege. If it's a privilige then it's subjective. There is a grey area between the primitive and the civilized. That grey area encompasses exceeding the speed limit, taking advantage of "free breakfast" and using Napster to download "the real slim shady". It might not be utopian but neither is it Orwellian. The relationship between society and personal autonomy is based on give and take. Some people get a head start, some people need to take a shortcut to catch up. There's nuisance in everything.

It's all be forgotten though. That's a shame.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

As an example, we have an understanding that a man has strong sexual urges but we have a strict expectation that you will seek consent for the greater good. Now it's been inverted where someone asking for consent is the default and rape is some kind of pseudo-psychological defect. Despite our absolutist view of consent sexuality has never been more perverted as a concept. Somehow the savages were more civilized despite their "perverse" inclinations.

Is this implying men raping women is the default?